CaseSnappy Blog

Decoding Judgements: The Boundaries of Human Rights Law - Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini & Ors

26 July 2024 | CaseSnappy Team

A view of a bridge over the city of Basra in Iraq.

Introduction

Welcome back, CaseSnappy community! We're here with a fresh instalment of our Decoding Judgements series, exploring the contested provinces of human rights law in the pivotal case of Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini & Ors [2007] UKHL 26.

Ripped from the Headlines: The Case Facts

This controversial case revolves around the deaths of six Iraqi civilians, whose lives were abruptly cut short or severely impacted by operations conducted by British forces in Basra, Iraq. Families of the victims sought judicial review against the Secretary of State for Defence, asserting their right to independent inquiries and disputing rejection of liability.

Crux of the Controversy: The Issues

At the heart of the matter, the appellants posited that both the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) must be implemented extraterritorially, thereby demanding a comprehensive review of the addressed incidents. In reply, the Secretary of State insisted these legal instruments operate solely within the geographic confines of the UK.

Whispers from the Chambers: The Decision

Bearing the seal of the House of Lords, the outcome held that the HRA does not typically reach beyond the UK. Nevertheless, it was affirmed that when the UK holds jurisdiction under the Convention for actions outside its territory, the Act applies. This decision had profound implications for one of the cases, wherein a victim endured maltreatment and subsequently died in UK military detention.

Lord Bingham punctuated the ruling with the emphatic statement, "I would, accordingly hold that the HRA has no extra-territorial application ... This does not mean that members of the British armed forces serving abroad are free to murder, rape and pillage with impunity." Lord Rodger added that, "The purpose of the 1998 Act is to provide remedies in our domestic law to those whose human rights are violated by a United Kingdom public authority. Making such remedies available for acts of a United Kingdom authority on the territory of another state would not be offensive to the sovereignty of the other state."

CaseSnappy: Peering Through the Legal Fog

This compelling case underscores the often blurred boundaries of human rights law and its intersection with military conduct. As our Decoding Judgments series continues, we remain committed to shedding light on these multifaceted legal cases for law students, professionals, and curious minds. Don't miss our next deep-dive into the maze of caselaw.

Sign up for CaseSnappy for free today and supercharge your legal understanding.

Get started
By using CaseSnappy, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information.